5 ms·

If you want to read a comment on this, try Derek Lowe's: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-s-hammer-delivers https://www.science.org/

If you want to read a comment on this, try Derek Lowe's: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-s-hammer-delivers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-... Wikipedia has an article on the drug already if you would like to have a look at that instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir

kazinator 5y ago
> exerts its antiviral action through introduction of copying errors during viral RNA replication How does this target only viral RNA, not the body's own? Copying errors don't sound like something you want in your own RNA. "However, there are inherent risks in this approach. NHC can be metabolized by the host cell to the 20-deoxyribonucleoside form by the ribonucleotide reductase and then incorporated into the host cell DNA. The mutagenic effect of NHC has been shown in animal cell cultures (10), raising concerns on the potential risk of molnupiravir-induced tumorigenesis and the emergence of detrimental mutations in sperm precursor cell generation and embryo development." https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf Yikes. I think, instead of quaffing carcinogens, it's wiser to get vaccinated.
- wk_end 5y ago
  100% agreed on getting vaccinated, but for the elderly or immunocompromised people vaccination isn't enough to necessarily prevent severe outcomes and it might be worth the risk. As a young person, I'd probably stay away, at least in the near term, given how effective vaccines are.
  - hanselot 5y ago
    If the metric is lethality, they certainly are very effective.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    If you're elderly, I suppose it's down to how many years you have left under various outcome scenarios under various risks. You're not going to reproduce, so reproductive harm isn't an issue.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  I believe the reason the trial was in unvaccinated people, was so that it would have a big enough signal to detect quickly. If you did the same trial with vaccinated subjects, it might still be making a 50% reduction in hospitalization, but it would take a lot longer to detect that. I don't think the idea is to only give it to the unvaccinated.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    I'd love to talk to someone who refused to get vaccinated but gave their informed consent to participate in this trial. Kind of boosts my personal theory is that a lot of vaccine hesitancy is driven by the fact that it's an injection and if it were a pill instead people would be more willing to take it.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Your theory is entirely possible. But I’d also like to point out that the study population was entirely Covid positive people with one or more risk factors. Presumably if you’re overweight, over 60, and have Covid you probably are willing to take more risks than before to improve your odds of not dying. Even the vaccine hesitant might accept that risk.

kazinator 5y ago

> exerts its antiviral action through introduction of copying errors during viral RNA replication How does this target only viral RNA, not the body's own? Copying errors don't sound like something you want in your own RNA. "However, there are inherent risks in this approach. NHC can be metabolized by the host cell to the 20-deoxyribonucleoside form by the ribonucleotide reductase and then incorporated into the host cell DNA. The mutagenic effect of NHC has been shown in animal cell cultures (10), raising concerns on the potential risk of molnupiravir-induced tumorigenesis and the emergence of detrimental mutations in sperm precursor cell generation and embryo development." https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf Yikes. I think, instead of quaffing carcinogens, it's wiser to get vaccinated.

wk_end 5y ago
100% agreed on getting vaccinated, but for the elderly or immunocompromised people vaccination isn't enough to necessarily prevent severe outcomes and it might be worth the risk. As a young person, I'd probably stay away, at least in the near term, given how effective vaccines are.
- hanselot 5y ago
  If the metric is lethality, they certainly are very effective.
- kazinator 5y ago
  If you're elderly, I suppose it's down to how many years you have left under various outcome scenarios under various risks. You're not going to reproduce, so reproductive harm isn't an issue.
rossdavidh 5y ago
I believe the reason the trial was in unvaccinated people, was so that it would have a big enough signal to detect quickly. If you did the same trial with vaccinated subjects, it might still be making a 50% reduction in hospitalization, but it would take a lot longer to detect that. I don't think the idea is to only give it to the unvaccinated.
- xxpor 5y ago
  I'd love to talk to someone who refused to get vaccinated but gave their informed consent to participate in this trial. Kind of boosts my personal theory is that a lot of vaccine hesitancy is driven by the fact that it's an injection and if it were a pill instead people would be more willing to take it.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Your theory is entirely possible. But I’d also like to point out that the study population was entirely Covid positive people with one or more risk factors. Presumably if you’re overweight, over 60, and have Covid you probably are willing to take more risks than before to improve your odds of not dying. Even the vaccine hesitant might accept that risk.